Well, I cant top 75 virgins, even in Utah. In fact I only have half the virgins I claim, I have to use each one twice. We just turn them over and send them in backwards, the stupid suicide bombers can't tell the difference. All hail Supreme Chancellor Fred.
The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 24 - The Atheist Manifesto
by RunningMan 29 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Room 215
I think it's important to note that one can disavow any belief in the Bible's inerrancy and young-earth creationism and still not necessarily be an atheist, or even an agnostic.
-
RunningMan
Well, since this is confession time, half of my virgins are men, and burly, hairy, men at that. I hope that's still ok. A virgin is a virgin, right?
-
Shining One
Runningman,
Besides setting up a host of logical traps, your reasoning accomplishes nothing: you see the design, yet you deny the possibility of a designer. That is clear and consistent in the analogies you are using. You cannot be an atheist because you would have to BE God to know that there is NO God! You are refusing to take your 'logical' reasoning to it's bitter end. The end of logic is that it is useless and insufficient to answer the origins question. It is vanity, just like the Preacher of Ecclesiates said, "all is vanity".
What you fail to see is that logic leaves you in a delimma.
Intelligent design at it's very basis admits that we do not have the knowledge or capability of explaining the ultimate question. The reality that you seek to avoid is that you can't figure God (or the 'First Cause') out! Now you reach the point where you must ask yourself: which of the explanations for origins do I want to accept, which actually makes a true attempt to explain the great philosophical questions yet has some evidence to back it up?
C. S. Lewis is an author that comes to mind. Why not read his works and see what you think? Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters.
Rex -
doogie
You cannot be an atheist because you would have to BE God to know that there is NO God!
good lord...i get so tired of this poop. look up the word before you post about the definition.
a THEIST believes in god(s).
and ATHEIST does not.
not believing in god(s) is not the same thing as believing that there is no god(s). (the 2 ideas sound very similar but read it closely, they are worlds apart.) atheism implies lack of belief not knowledge of a negative.
an atheist does not believe in god, a theist does...neither KNOWS either way. it's a logical fallacy to criticize an atheist's belief which in fact they do not hold.
-
Shining One
Agnostic is the term, not atheist.....
-
Sara Annie
I used to work with a couple who declared themselves "practicing atheists".
Even all these years later, I can barely type it for the giggling...
-
tetrapod.sapien
rex,
Besides setting up a host of logical traps, your reasoning accomplishes nothing: you see the design, yet you deny the possibility of a designer.
i think it's funny that you don't even know the name or origins of your argument. it's called the argument from design. it's full of holes. it's daddy was william paley. your pressuposition daddy is clark. and your big daddy is jesus. whoopie!
That is clear and consistent in the analogies you are using.
what's clear and consistent are the implicit assertions in everything you say. that god exists. i am still waiting for evidence that god exists rex! where is it already?!
You cannot be an atheist because you would have to BE God to know that there is NO God!
- HA HA HA!! LOL! good one! he he he...
You are refusing to take your 'logical' reasoning to it's bitter end.
for starters, you could stop stealing arguments that atheists use. especially since they are absurd coming from a fundy. her rex, try this on for size:
"i'm rubber and you're glue. bounces off me, and sticks to you."
The end of logic is that it is useless and insufficient to answer the origins question. It is vanity, just like the Preacher of Ecclesiates said, "all is vanity".
heh. and the bible is better than logic for answering this question how again? omg...
Intelligent design at it's very basis admits that we do not have the knowledge or capability of explaining the ultimate question.
great. so let's teach this to kids in science class? "hey kids, just give up now, it's impossible to know. wait on god."
(i just threw up a little bit in my mouth)
The reality that you seek to avoid is that you can't figure God (or the 'First Cause') out!
but don't worry! prophet rex is here to save the day!
Now you reach the point where you must ask yourself: which of the explanations for origins do I want to accept, which actually makes a true attempt to explain the great philosophical questions yet has some evidence to back it up?
okay then, i choose the parsimonious explanation. bye bye jesus!
C. S. Lewis is an author that comes to mind.
but of course he does! typical.
Agnostic is the term, not atheist.....
actually, no. you're wrong again. it is atheist.
TS
-
RunningMan
Well, I have come back from a week in San Francisco to discover that my thread has been hopping while I was away. For an atheism thread, a couple posts in a week is indeed hopping. I have particularly enjoyed some of the thoughtful refutations. Take this one for example:
You cannot be an atheist because you would have to BE God to know that there is NO God!
I also believe that there is no giant ape named King Kong hanging from the Empire State Building, but since I am not King Kong, I can't know that for sure.
You have said that in order to know that there is no god, I would have to be god. But, if I were god, then obviously, he would exist.
Apparently, using this logic, unless you are something, you can't know that it doesn't exist. However, if you are something, then it must exist. Therefore, everything exists. That makes enough sense to be in the Bible. I can see why you're not a big fan of logic.
And, for the rest of you, I have a couple more articles to add, but I might just wait until next week to post them.
-
doogie
Agnostic is the term, not atheist.....
i've posted this before, but "agnostic" is a relatively new term. for 1000's of years before the term was created philosophers that did not believe in god and believed that ultimately, the question of whether god exists is unknowable, did not NEED the term agnostic. why? because "atheist" means "does not believe in _____" (fill in the blank with whichever god you have in mind). it does NOT mean "knows that there is no god whatsoever." i know some disagree with me on this, and that's fine but linguisticly, "atheist" means exactly what people think "agnostic" means. also, linguisticly, "agnostic" means that you don't know if you know whether you believe in god or not. (and this stance is not available unless you are a little baby)